Personal tools
 
Views

Argument: Corporate spending breaks media power in elections

From Debatepedia

Revision as of 16:10, 19 October 2010; Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision | Newer revision→ (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Parent debate

Supporting quotations

Cleta Mitchell. "Partner at Foley & Lardner who works in campaign finance law; filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Citizens United, on behalf of two advocacy organizations opposing the ban on corporate expenditures: "The Supreme Court has correctly eliminated a constitutionally flawed system that allowed media corporations (e.g., The Washington Post Co.) to freely disseminate their opinions about candidates using corporate treasury funds, while denying that constitutional privilege to Susie's Flower Shop Inc."[1]

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.